Re: Long blurbs repeated in many package descriptions considered harmful
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
> For example, the pike blurb could be summarised with something like:
> Pike is an interpreted, object-oriented, dynamic programming language
> with a syntax similar to C. To learn more about pike, see the package
> pike7.6 or visit http://pike.ida.liu.se/
For pike itself, that's a good description. For pike-pcap, no way.
> I think it is essential to provide information about acronyms and other
> high-tech names, however they should be essential and they shouldn't
> distort search results mentioning things that are not present in the
> package. When the pike module for pcap says what is pike, it's ok. But
> when it mentions image manipulation, database connectivity and XML
> parsers, then it's strongly misleading.
If you want to explain what "pike" is, I think it would be best to
say "pcap is blah blah blah for the pike programming language".
This is exactly the amount of explanation that is due. No less, no
more. It tells a casual user well enough "what is pike", but doesn't
include anything not related to the library itself.
Just my 2 zorkmids,
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.